Mitt Romney’s generally strong debate performance was marred by two small and inexplicable shadings of fact — moments that left reporters, rivals, and allies shaking their heads and wondering why he he couldn’t just give a straight and obvious answer to relatively trivial questions.

The first lie was that he had dropped out of politics and gone back into business in 2006, when he left the governor’s office, when in fact he ran for President. In another obvious fib, he at first claimed he hadn’t seen a particular campaign ad, and then seconds later he described the ad.

So I did some googling, and there are all kinds of articles on the Web describing pathological liar as someone who lies habitually, or reflexively, because he just prefers to. Here’s one:

A compulsive liar is defined as someone who lies out of habit. Lying is their normal and reflexive way of responding to questions. Compulsive liars bend the truth about everything, large and small. For a compulsive liar, telling the truth is very awkward and uncomfortable while lying feels right. Compulsive lying is usually thought to develop in early childhood, due to being placed in an environment where lying was necessary. For the most part, compulsive liars are not overly manipulative and cunning (unlike sociopaths), rather they simply lie out of habit – an automatic response which is hard to break and one that takes its toll on a relationship (see, how to cope with a compulsive liar).

There are several kinds of pathological liars, and IMO Romney sounds more like a habitual liar than anything else:

Habitual pathological lying is, as the name suggest, habitual. Habitual liar lies so frequently, that it becomes a habit, as a result, he/she puts very little effort in giving a thought about what the output is going to be, nor does he/she care much to process whether it’s a lie or not, it’s simply a reflex & very often can be completely unnecessary or even opposite to his/her own needs. If he/she stops & thinks about it, he/she knows clearly it’s a lie.

In brief, Saturday night may have been the most naked piece of point-shaving and game-throwing since the 1919 World Series. I’ve seen fixed prizefights where the issue was more in doubt. The other candidates went so far into the tank for Willard that they may not dry off until next August. In the 1950’s, Frankie Carbo would have had them all killed because they made it look so damned obvious. Where was the promised Gingrich assault on the frontrunner? Where was the blood, the guts, the glory? Where was the damn slasher film we all anticipated? This was a waltz, and a clumsy one. If the people in that audience had any pride at all, they’d have attacked the ABC platform and demanded satisfaction for this massive piece of consumer fraud.

However, news stories say that today the remaining Seven Clowns — they’re down to Five Clowns now, since Perry chose not to drop out just yet — went after Mittens today, so maybe they aren’t folding just yet.

Romney has a lead in New Hampshire worthy of Secretariat; it’s going to be a landslide. He is comfortably ahead in the polls in South Carolina, which will hold its primary on January 21. If he clobbers the rest of the field in those two contests, which is possible, it’s going to be very hard to stop him from being the nominee. Not that I mind.